Should priests be allowed to marry ? hmmmmm

This should answer that.

Fact 1. "Peter", according to Roman Catholic tradition was the first 'Pope'...

Fact 2. Mark 1:29 As soon as they left the synagogue, they went with James and John to the home of Simon and Andrew. 30Simon's mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they told Jesus about her. 31So he went to her, took her hand and helped her up. The fever left her and she began to wait on them.

So..if the first pope had a mother in law.. obviously he was.. MARRIED :)

Where did the RC Church go wrong?

Aah.. there is a joke about this.

The old monk down in the basement studiously copying some ancient manuscript.. and down comes the Abbot who exlaims... "Father.. it was CeliBRATE..not "celibate" :)

Dear mjpb,

Dr Paul Collins was referring specifically
to the disciples of Jesus.
As I'm sure you're well aware - if you
know your Church history.

Dr Collins is a historian and a
graduate of the Harvard Divinity School and the
Australian National University as I've stated
previously. His credentials are impeccable.

I'm congratulate you for having ordered Dr Collins'
book online. Hopefully you shall read it with
an open mind, as I intend to do with Michael
Gilchrist's book.

I must admit this discussion is getting
tedious. And I'm beginning to suspect
that it is a waste of my time and yours
for us to continue. We can just simply
agree to disagree and leave it at that.

I am sick to death of the spurious
reasons advanced for the maintenance of celibacy
It is simply a church law that has out-lived its
usefulness.

Dear Banjo,

According to the 2006 census which shows the number
of Australian Catholics increased by 125 260 or 2.5%
to 5 126844 over the 2001 census. The number of active
priests in 2007 was around 2150.

That is one priest for around 2400 Catholics.

This is much lower than in the US where the ration is
about one priest to 1900 Catholics.

So while the number of Catholics continues to increase
the number of priests continues to decrease and age.

Foxy

Thank you for initiating this discussion. It's been very interesting, but I think you are right to assess that it has probably run its course.

The debate reminds me again that intelligence and rationality, while closely inter-related, are not necessarily coterminous. It revived for me memories of the recent debate about whether 'my opinion is as good as the next'. Clearly some opinions are no more than dreary pre-judgments unsullied and unaffected by contrary evidence.

I find that I look forward to reading your posts because you are prepared to engage and to vary your opinion in the light of new evidence or a tighter argument. Can you multiply yourself for the betterment of OLO?

Dear Spikey,

Thank You so much
for your very kind words.

I don't pretend to have all the answers,
and I'm not that egotistical as to think
that I can change any one else's point of
view.

There are far wiser posters on this Forum.
(Maybe not as good-looking? ... just kidding):)

I simply enjoy the interaction.

However, as I said in my previous post -
and you concur - I think that this thread
has run its course. I've said all I have
to say on the topic.

Thanks to You and Everyone, for their inputs, and for
making this thread an interesting one.

As a non-catholic, I might observe not

“Should Catholic Priests be allowed to marry?”

But

“Should Catholic Priests be allowed?”

I guess, as a libertarian, I am prepared to suggest they may be allowed

But their organization and they should be allowed only on parity with other organizations which qualify for tax exemptions under the rules of the charity commissioners and only after a thorough investigation by an independent authority into the cover-up of pedophilia and other corruption within their ranks.

As for the recent focus on this religious denomination and its jamboree,

As a non-catholic living in a secular country with historic fealty to a non-catholic monarch (I thought I would throw that in for our home grown republicans), all I can say is

imho the Pope is just another cat who is getting fat on the stupidity of his flock by pretending he is the exclusive conduit between men, women and their maker.

That's one way of looking at it, Col. My own suspicion is that more often than not they actually believe their own rhetoric. Which is unfortunate, because if they were simply conning people then there would be a chance that their conscience would get to them. So whilst I don't think he's 'pretending' I kind of wish he was.

Though ultimately it doesn't make one iota of difference in the scheme of things whether they believe it or not.